5 ms·

Actually, no -- if you look into that specific case the jury awarded >$2m which was immediately reduced to $670k by the judge, and then settled out of court for

by kobeya 10y ago

Actually, no -- if you look into that specific case the jury awarded >$2m which was immediately reduced to $670k by the judge, and then settled out of court for a presumably smaller amount. Nearly all of it went to medical bills for this lady whose skin and genitalia had been burned entirely through by the near-boiling liquid. The "crazy lady gets insane punitive windfall for being too stupid to know that hot coffee is hot" was a PR effort by McDonald's and other firms in a (successful) attempt to get the laws changed so that such suits would be harder to bring in the future.

Karunamon 10y ago
I realize we're on a tangent now, but I can't let that stand unchallenged. Mcdonalds' brewing/holding temperature was the recommended temperature for coffee by the the NCA, a coffee industry group, not to mention any number of enthusiasts. This is between 195F and 205F for brewing, and holding around 170-190F. A quick google search confirms this. ~195ish is also where home drip brewers are set. McDonalds' temperatures were not unreasonable or outside the norm. Most adults will sustain third degree burns with contact of 150F water for two seconds, a full 45 degrees lower. It is not reasonable to expect coffee to be brewed and held even at that temperature, let alone below it. Furthermore, Liebeck's burns and their location were sustained entirely because she put a styrofoam container (i.e. something easily crushed) between her legs to add cream&sugar outside the store - and then, sure enough, she crushed it. Given the absurd volume of coffee that they were selling even back then, which was brewed at identical temperatures, and did not result in any injury (on the orders of multiple millions of cups per day), I chalk this one up to 100% user error, judge be damned. The severity of her injuries do not even factor into the question of who was at fault. Coffee brewed correctly is extremely hot out of the serving container, and should be treated with appropriate care - including not putting it in a position where you can dump it on yourself. This case is a study in how emotional manipulation (poor old lady vs multinational corporation) works on the justice system. Mcdonalds would have done well to just pay her medical bills, even though they didn't actually do anything wrong or irresponsible, and be done with it.
- rayiner 10y ago
  NCA's recommendation applies to a wholly different context and ignores relevant considerations of the instant situation. You're trying to apply a single-criterion optimization function to a problem that calls for multi-criterion optimization function. Here, we are not merely talking about brewing coffee. We are talking about a business model based on brewing coffee and then serving it to customers in "easily crushed" containers who are driving in their cars. Whatever the appropriate brewing temperature happens to be in that context, it is not given by NCA's recommendation.
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    Whatever the appropriate brewing temperature happens to be in that context, it is not given by NCA's recommendation. The temperature at which the flavors and oils that make up coffee are optimally extracted from ground beans does not change based on the business model of the people selling it.
    - sithadmin 10y ago
      That's true, but the fact that there is an approximate ideal water temperature for coffee brewing has no bearing on what appropriate storage and serving temperatures might be.
      - Karunamon 10y ago
        Assume for a minute that they were holding at 170F (chosen because it's a middle ground between 160 and 180, common hot beverage holding temps from [1]). Even at that lower temperature, Stella would still have sustained third degree burns in under one second [2]. Even if you're generous and take 20 degrees off to account for cooling between the time of pouring and the time of spilling, that's only one extra second's difference to get second/third degree burned. Given that her burns were exacerbated by her clothing trapping the hot liquid next to her skin, that isn't enough to have made a difference in the outcome. The conclusion is clear. Any reasonable hot holding temperature will result in serious burns if you get the liquid on you soon after purchase. 1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18226454 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18226454 2: http://www.accuratebuilding.com/images/services/charts/hot_water_burn_scalding_lrg.gif http://www.accuratebuilding.com/images/services/charts/hot_w...
Programmatic 10y ago
It's not just a PR effort. She asked for $11k for medical bills. They refused. """ After four hours of deliberation, the jury found for Liebeck. She was awarded $200,000 for compensatory damages, reduced by 20 percent because Liebeck had contributed to the accident. They also awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages. One juror said, "It was our way of saying, 'Hey, open your eyes. People are getting burned'." """ http://academic.udayton.edu/Lawecon/Assignments/Torts/Mc%20Donalds%20hot%20coffee%20case.pdf http://academic.udayton.edu/Lawecon/Assignments/Torts/Mc%20D...
- benchaney 10y ago
  Nothing in your post supports the argument that it wasn't just a PR effort.
  - Programmatic 10y ago
    Sorry, I was talking to the larger context: GP: you also have punitive fines - that's why that lady got $2M or so for the coffee burning her at McDonald's. OP: "crazy lady gets insane punitive windfall for being too stupid to know that hot coffee is hot" was a PR effort Me/article: They also awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages. One juror said, "It was our way of saying, 'Hey, open your eyes. People are getting burned'." It sounded like the general idea with the "crazy lady gets insane punitive windfall" was "No, it wasn't punitive fines and it was for legitimate medical bills". That's not the case, the jury specifically wanted to award punitive damages. The money was not for medical bills.
    - kobeya 10y ago
      > They also awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages. Which she didn't receive.
      - Programmatic 10y ago
        So, the final tally is asked for $11k, jury awarded $200k in compensation and $2.7 million in punitive damages. The trial judge reduced the final verdict to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided. The basic fact remains that there were, in fact, punitive damages.

by kobeya 10y ago

Karunamon 10y ago

I realize we're on a tangent now, but I can't let that stand unchallenged. Mcdonalds' brewing/holding temperature was the recommended temperature for coffee by the the NCA, a coffee industry group, not to mention any number of enthusiasts. This is between 195F and 205F for brewing, and holding around 170-190F. A quick google search confirms this. ~195ish is also where home drip brewers are set. McDonalds' temperatures were not unreasonable or outside the norm. Most adults will sustain third degree burns with contact of 150F water for two seconds, a full 45 degrees lower. It is not reasonable to expect coffee to be brewed and held even at that temperature, let alone below it. Furthermore, Liebeck's burns and their location were sustained entirely because she put a styrofoam container (i.e. something easily crushed) between her legs to add cream&sugar outside the store - and then, sure enough, she crushed it. Given the absurd volume of coffee that they were selling even back then, which was brewed at identical temperatures, and did not result in any injury (on the orders of multiple millions of cups per day), I chalk this one up to 100% user error, judge be damned. The severity of her injuries do not even factor into the question of who was at fault. Coffee brewed correctly is extremely hot out of the serving container, and should be treated with appropriate care - including not putting it in a position where you can dump it on yourself. This case is a study in how emotional manipulation (poor old lady vs multinational corporation) works on the justice system. Mcdonalds would have done well to just pay her medical bills, even though they didn't actually do anything wrong or irresponsible, and be done with it.

rayiner 10y ago
NCA's recommendation applies to a wholly different context and ignores relevant considerations of the instant situation. You're trying to apply a single-criterion optimization function to a problem that calls for multi-criterion optimization function. Here, we are not merely talking about brewing coffee. We are talking about a business model based on brewing coffee and then serving it to customers in "easily crushed" containers who are driving in their cars. Whatever the appropriate brewing temperature happens to be in that context, it is not given by NCA's recommendation.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  Whatever the appropriate brewing temperature happens to be in that context, it is not given by NCA's recommendation. The temperature at which the flavors and oils that make up coffee are optimally extracted from ground beans does not change based on the business model of the people selling it.
  - sithadmin 10y ago
    That's true, but the fact that there is an approximate ideal water temperature for coffee brewing has no bearing on what appropriate storage and serving temperatures might be.
    - Karunamon 10y ago
      Assume for a minute that they were holding at 170F (chosen because it's a middle ground between 160 and 180, common hot beverage holding temps from [1]). Even at that lower temperature, Stella would still have sustained third degree burns in under one second [2]. Even if you're generous and take 20 degrees off to account for cooling between the time of pouring and the time of spilling, that's only one extra second's difference to get second/third degree burned. Given that her burns were exacerbated by her clothing trapping the hot liquid next to her skin, that isn't enough to have made a difference in the outcome. The conclusion is clear. Any reasonable hot holding temperature will result in serious burns if you get the liquid on you soon after purchase. 1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18226454 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18226454 2: http://www.accuratebuilding.com/images/services/charts/hot_water_burn_scalding_lrg.gif http://www.accuratebuilding.com/images/services/charts/hot_w...

Programmatic 10y ago

It's not just a PR effort. She asked for $11k for medical bills. They refused. """ After four hours of deliberation, the jury found for Liebeck. She was awarded $200,000 for compensatory damages, reduced by 20 percent because Liebeck had contributed to the accident. They also awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages. One juror said, "It was our way of saying, 'Hey, open your eyes. People are getting burned'." """ http://academic.udayton.edu/Lawecon/Assignments/Torts/Mc%20Donalds%20hot%20coffee%20case.pdf http://academic.udayton.edu/Lawecon/Assignments/Torts/Mc%20D...

benchaney 10y ago
Nothing in your post supports the argument that it wasn't just a PR effort.
- Programmatic 10y ago
  Sorry, I was talking to the larger context: GP: you also have punitive fines - that's why that lady got $2M or so for the coffee burning her at McDonald's. OP: "crazy lady gets insane punitive windfall for being too stupid to know that hot coffee is hot" was a PR effort Me/article: They also awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages. One juror said, "It was our way of saying, 'Hey, open your eyes. People are getting burned'." It sounded like the general idea with the "crazy lady gets insane punitive windfall" was "No, it wasn't punitive fines and it was for legitimate medical bills". That's not the case, the jury specifically wanted to award punitive damages. The money was not for medical bills.
  - kobeya 10y ago
    > They also awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages. Which she didn't receive.
    - Programmatic 10y ago
      So, the final tally is asked for $11k, jury awarded $200k in compensation and $2.7 million in punitive damages. The trial judge reduced the final verdict to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided. The basic fact remains that there were, in fact, punitive damages.